Where's the shame in admitting they don't know what an object was for? They very often do know what the object is used for. It just doesn't have any economic/s

Where's the shame in admitting they don't know what an object was for? They very often do know what the object is used for. It just doesn't have any economic/survival significance. For example, children's toys are labelled ritual objects. This sort bulk classification via jargon exists elsewhere in science. For example, astronomers refer to all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium as metals. Should we ridicule astronomers for not knowing basic chemistry? Or should we accept that different fields have terms of art/jargon which are very useful for communicating among colleagues and are not intended to compete with the general usage of those words?